Transcript

1 Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) Vigiliae Christianae The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century Michael Zheltov Moscow Spiritual Academy, , Moskovskaya obl., Sergiev Posad, Lavra, Russia Abstract New critical text edition (with translation and a commentary) of the oldest extant manuscript containing a complete set of prayers, P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b-157b. This text is of prime importance for liturgical studies, especially of anaphoral development. Keywords Anaphora, Egypt, Eucharist, liturgical studies, papyri, thanksgiving prayer A 4th-century papyrus codex, P.Monts.Roca inv , 1 now in the library of the Abbey of Montserrat but originally in the possession of Ramón Roca-Puig, is yet to receive the scholarly attention it merits. The 1) The manuscript comes either from Dishna (see Robinson J.M. The Pachomian Monastic Library at the Chester Beatty Library and the Bibliothèque Bodmer, in: Manuscripts of the Middle East. Vol. 5 ( ). P ) or from Thebaid (see Tovar S.T., Worp K.A. To the Origins of Greek Stenography: P.Monts.Roca I. Barcelona, (Orientalia Montserratensia; 1) P ). A small piece of this codex is now a part of the Duke papyri collection (P.Duk.inv. 798, formerly P.Rob.inv. L 1; J.M. Robinson is incorrect in calling this piece P. Duke inv. L 1 (Robinson. Op. cit.). See a short description and an image of the latter piece in the Internet: My confidence in its dating is based not only on data from J. van Haelst s catalogue (van Haelst J. Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens. (Paris, 1976). P. 288) and R. Roca-Puig s book (Roca-Puig R. Anàfora de Barcelona i altres pregàries: Missa del segle IV. (Barcelona, 1994; ; )), but also on consultations with the leading papyrologists, including Bärbel Kramer and Paul Schubert, whom I thank gratefully. I would also Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: / X306551

4 470 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) Analysis of these prayers is hampered by errors in Roca-Puig s edition of the papyrus. Erroneous readings in the prayers for the sick were already corrected by the scholars mentioned above; my preliminary reading of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer appeared in an extensive review of Roca-Puig s book in the journal Khristiansky Vostok 16 together with Vinogradov s reading of the acrostic hymn. In the present article I offer my reconstruction of text of the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer, taking into account the former s two other fragments, Louvain. Copt. 27 and P.Vindob. G Finally, I discuss briefly whether their evidence might shift current scholarly presuppositions about the 4th-century anaphoral history. I. The Text In the edition of the Barcelona papyrus by Roca-Puig (hereafter: R.-P.), the critical edition of the Greek text of the anaphora is preceded by a diplomatic edition of the text that transcribes every letter of the papyrus. Despite the fact that a diplomatic version should decipher the manuscript verbatim, in R.-P. diplomatic edition of the anaphora its text is already divided into words. This rash division has unfortunately prejudiced R.-P. s reading of the papyrus. In fact a few of R.-P. s crucial conjectures in his critical edition of the prayers can be avoided just by choosing another word-division of the continuous papyrus text. R.-P. substantiates his conjectures by many examples from other liturgical texts, but the clear evidence of the papyrus itself should undoubtedly prevail as the main criterion of its reconstruction. In order to avoid prejudiced readings of the papyrus, I start by providing new diplomatic versions of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer from the Barcelona papyrus, using the facsimile edition of the papyrus given at the end of R.-P. s book. 17 Baumstark ( ): Acts of the International Congress. (Roma, 2001 [2002]: Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 265); eadem. Zur Erforschung orientalischer Anaphoren in liturgievergleichender Sicht III: Der Hinweis auf die Gaben bzw. das Opfer bei der Epiklese, in: A. Gerhards, K. Richter, (hrsg.) Das Opfer: Biblischer Anspruch und liturgische Feier. (Freiburg et al., 2000: Quaestiones Disputatae; 186). S ; Bradshaw P.F. Eucharistic Origins. (London et al., 2004) etc. 16). Vol. 4. P This volume, fully prepared for publication already in 2002, appeared only in 2005 (2006 is the year of publication indicated). 17) Roca-Puig. Anàfora de Barcelona... P

7 The Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 473 change of ει and ι, a very common iotacism, is widely represented in the Egyptian papyri. 18 In lines 154b, 3-4 R.-P. reads ΕΥΞΟΜΕΝΠΡΟΣ//ΚΥΡΙΟΝ as Εχομεν πρὸς Κύριον, We have [the hearts M. Zh.] to the Lord. This is quite understandable Εχομεν πρὸς τὸν Κύριον / Habemus ad Dominum is indeed a well known liturgical response. 19 In line 154b, 4 R.-P. reads ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΘΗΣΟΜΕΝ as εὐχαριστήσομεν. He is certainly correct in replacing Θ with Τ (the case we have here is a false aspiration), 20 but probably incorrect in interpreting this form as a future indicative (or an epic aorist, which is very unlikely). Instead it should be read as a regular aorist subjunctive: εὐχαριστήσωμεν a replacement of ω by ο occurs frequently in the papyri. 21 In line 154b, 7 R.-P. reads - ΘΕ ΠΑΝΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡΤΟΥ - ΚΥ ΗΜΩΝῙ ϒΧ Ρϒ as Θεὲ παντοκράτωρ, <Πάτερ> τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, O God Pantocrator, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I do not see any need to interpret the text in this way. The text should be read exactly, as: Θεὲ παντοκράτωρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, O God Pantocrator of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is merely a sign of an archaic Christology such expressions are well known from Sacred Scripture (cf. Eph 1: 17) and from many writings of the pre-nicaean orthodox Fathers. Note that a similar address to God is found in another Egyptian anaphora, that ascribed to Athanasius: 22 Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, O Lord, God Pantocrator of our Lord Jesus Christ. 23 In line 154b, 9 R.-P. reads ΟΥΡΑΝΟΥΣΤΗΝΘΑΛΑΣΣΑΝ as οὐρανούς, γῆν, θάλασσαν, the heaven, the earth, the sea. Altough the reading οὐρανούς, τῆν θάλασσαν is also not improbable, I agree with R.-P. s 18) See: Gignac F. Th. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Vol. 1: Phonology. (Milano, 1976: Testi e documenti per lo studio dell antichità; 55). P ) Still, there is another way of reading this sequence without turning ΥΞ into Χ, which is not likely phonetically: Ζεύξομεν πρὸς Κύριον, Let s join [the hearts] together to the Lord. But this reading seems very unnatural. Here the scribe has perhaps confused Εχομεν with some form like Εὐξώμεθα. 20) See: Gignac.Op. cit. P ) See: Ibid. P ) Edition: Frend W.H.C., Muirhead I.A. The Greek Manuscripts from the Cathedral of Q asr Ibrim, in: Le Muséon. Vol. 89 (1976). P (here: p ). 23) I disagree with J. Hammerstaedt who inserts just as Roca-Puig did in his edition of the Barcelona papyrus the expression <ὁ Πατὴρ> into the text of the Athanasian anaphora (Hammerstaedt. Op. cit. S. 135). There is no textological argument for this interpolation.

8 474 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) conjecture, because the expression seems quite natural and also because οὐρανοὺς is written without an article consequently, it is strange to expect an article before a homogeneous part of the sentence (θάλασσαν); but it should be noted that here R.-P. is mistaken already in his diplomatic version of the text (where he reads Γ instead of Τ), and thereby completely neglects to highlight his conjecture. In line 154b, 11 R.-P. is right in reading ΟΣ as -ους in ΑΠΟΣΚΟΤΟΣ: ἀπὸ σκότους, from darkness. An interchange of ου and ο occurs in the papyri, though rarely. 24 In lines 154b, R.-P. corrects the scribe s misspellings ΕΙΣΕΠΙΓΝΟ- ΣΙΟΝ ΟΞΗΣΟΝΟ//ΜΑΤΟΣΑΥΤΩ, reading this sequence as εἰς επίγνωσιν δόξης ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, unto knowledge of the glory of His name, which is certainly correct: a replacement of ου by ω in the papyri is a frequent interchange, especially in final position, 25 and a replacement of ω by ο also occurs frequently. 26 Only an insertion of a vowel after ι is uncommon. In line 154b, 15 R.-P. renders ΣΑΡΡΑΦΙΝ as σεραφιν, seraphim. While omitting the doubled Ρ is incontestable, 27 there is no need to spell Α as Ε in σεραφιν: the form σαραφιν is also attested in the sources. 28 In lines 154b, R.-P. corrects a few scribal misspellings in ΧΕΙΛ- ΙΑΙΣΧΕΙΛΙΑ ΩΝΚΑΙΜΥΡΙΑΙ//ΜΥΡΙΑ ΕΣΑΓΓΕΛΛΩΝΑΡΧΑΓΓΕΛΛΩΝ, rendering this sequence as χίλιαι χιλιάδων καὶ μύριαι μυριάδων ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων, thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels, archangels. Here, indeed, the scribe should have confused a noun (ἀγγέλων) and a participle (ἀγγέλλων), erroneously repeating Λ in ἀγγέλων and ἀρχαγγέλων; he also seems to have misspelled some forms of χιλίας but which forms? While R.-P. s conjecture (χίλιαι χιλιάδων) could be correct, it is less reasonable than a conjectural χίλιαι χιλιάδες, which: 1) is purely biblical (see Dan 7: 10); 2) leaves ΜΥΡΙΑΙ//ΜΥΡΙΑ ΕΣ without any conjecture at all; 3) is found in other known Greek anaphoras, including Egyptian ones for example, in the anaphora of the Liturgy of Mark. So I would suggest χίλιαι χιλιάδες καὶ μύριαι μυριάδες ἀγγέλων, ἀρχαγγέλων, with the same meaning as R.-P. s. 24) See: Gignac.Op. cit. P ) See: Ibid. P ) See: Ibid. P ; cf. lines 154b, 4; 155a, 15; 155a, 24 of our papyrus. 27) See: Ibid. P ) This form is used, for example, in Photius Lexicon : Φοτίου τοῦ πατριάρχου λέξεων συναγογή (Cambridge, 1822). Part. 2. P. 500.

9 The Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 475 In lines 154b, R.-P. rightly corrects a mistake in ΟΞΑΛΟΓΟΥΝ// ΤΩΝ: δοξολογούντων: the replacement of α by ο is a special feature of the Greek papyri of the Roman and Byzantine periods, and the presence of a liquid makes this interchange even more natural. 29 In lines 154b, R.-P. reads ΠΛΗΡΗΣΣΟΥ//ΟΟΥΡΑΝΟΣΤΗΣ ΟΞΗΣΣΟΥ as πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς <καὶ ἡ γῆ> τῆς δόξης σου, Heaven and earth are full of Your glory. If we take into consideration the text of the Barcelona papyrus only, this conjecture is unnecessary. The reading πλήρης σου ὁ οὐρανὸς τῆς δόξης σου, Your heaven is full of Your glory, is a bit clumsy yet still acceptable, though this reading would attest that the anaphora contains not just a redaction of the biblical text, usual for Christian anaphoras (πλήρης ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης σου instead of the πλήρης πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ of Is. 6: 3), 30 but also a complete replacement of the biblical ἡ γῆ by ὁ οὐρανὸς and a doubling of σοῦ replacing the biblical αὐτοῦ. But both the Louvain and Vienna fragments of the anaphora, which begin with the second part of the Sanctus hymn, do contain the word γῆ here. The Louvain fragment has it even twice both in the Greek transcription of the hymn and in its Coptic translation: ⲅⲏ ⲧⲏⲥ ⲟⲝⲏⲥ ⲥⲟⲩ. ⲧⲡⲉ ⲙ ⲕⲁϩ ⲙⲉϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩ ⲡⲉⲕⲟⲟⲩ ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, [Heaven and] earth [are full] of Your glory. Heaven and earth are full of Your glory, O Lord! The Vienna fragment of the anaphora opens with: ]ς κ[αὶ] ἡ γῆ τῆς ἁγι[, [Heaven] and earth [are full] of [Your] holy [glory] hence, R.-P. s conjecture here should be accepted. 31 In line 154b, 22 R.-P. reads ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟΥΣΟΥ as μονογενοῦς σου, correcting the omitted Σ, which is of course just a scribal oversight. Line 154b, 25 of the papyrus is fairly complete, but both Louvain. Copt. 27 and P.Vindob. G add after νεκρούς: οὗ τὴν θανάτου ἀνάμνησιν ποιοῦμεν. I would insert this addition into the critical text of the anaphora because it is supported by two out of three witnesses to the text. In line 155a, 1 R.-P. reads ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΕΚΤΙΣΜΑΤΑΣΟΥΤΑΥΤΑ as προσφέρομεν κτίσματά σου ταῦτα, We offer these Your creations, not commenting at all on his omission of Ε after ΠΡΟΣΦΕΡΟΜΕΝ. This is highly inaccurate: the line could simply be read as is: προσφέρομεν ἐκτίσματά σου ταῦτα, We offer these Your payments and this reading would have necessarily been preferred had the Louvain fragment been 29) See: Gignac.Op. cit. P ) See: Taft R.F. The Interpolation... Vol. 57 (1991). P ) S. Janeras suggests to make just one more conjecture here see footnote 73.

10 476 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) completely lost. But the Louvain fragment (the Vienna fragment is of no help here) gives ⲉ ⲡⲣⲟⲥⲫⲉⲣⲁ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛⲉⲕ ⲥⲱⲛ ⲛⲁ, we offer You these creations of Yours. So I suggest interpreting Ε in this line of the papyrus as a misspelled ΣΕ, which, in turn, would be a misspelled ΣΟΙ. Thus, the correct reading seems to be: προσφέρομέν σοι κτίσματά σου ταῦτα, We offer You these Your creations. In lines 155a, 3-4 R.-P. omits the doubling of ΤΟΑΓΙΟΝΣΟΥ. This is probably correct. But he also reads ΤΟΑΓΙΟΝΣΟΥ as τὸ ἅγιον, Holy, which is an unneccessary conjecture. The text should be read as it stands: τὸ ἅγιόν σου, Your Holy. In lines 155a, 4-5 R.-P. reads ΠΝΕΥΜΑΑΞΙΩΝ//Ο Υ Ν Ω Ν as Πνεῦμα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, Spirit from heaven. I would not easily agree with a hasty reading of ΑΞΙΩΝ//Ο Υ Ν Ω Ν as ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, because it is impossible phonetically to render ἐκ τῶν as ΑΞΙΩΝ. This obscure sequence could be read in other ways, either as ἄξιον, οὐράνιον, worthy, heavenly, or as ἐκ Σιὼν οὐρανίου, 32 from heavenly Sion : the rendering of ἐκ Σιὼν as ΑΞΙΩΝ is much more satisfactory phonetically than that of ἐκ τῶν. But R.-P. s reading here is supported by evidence of the Louvain fragment, whereas the Vienna fragment abruptly comes to an end a few words before: ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩ ⲡⲏⲩⲉ, from heaven. 33 In line 155a, 5 R.-P. reads ΕΙΣΤΟΣΩΜΑΤΟΥΠΟΗΣΑΙΑΥΤΑ as τοῦ ἁγιάσαι αὐτὰ, in order to sanctify them. I strongly disagree with this reading, because the text of the papyrus is quite clear here and needs no such guesswork. ΕΙΣΤΟ is in any case not τοῦ but, obviously, εἰς τὸ, and ΣΩΜΑΤΟΥΠΟΗΣΑΙ is very likely a slightly misspelled form of the regular Greek verb σωματοποιέω 34 σωματοποιῆσαι. The transformation of οι into ο in different forms of ποιῶ (including ποιῆσαι) is very common in the papyri; 35 and in line 154b, 11 of our papyrus we have already seen an example of an interchange between ου and ο (though in an opposite direction) such interchange seems to rest on interference between Greek and Coptic ) For this variant and for a conjecture to be discussed next (line 155a, 5) I am indebted to Michael Asmus, whom I thank gratefully. 33) This reading is in itself a conjecture, though here in ⲡⲏⲩⲉ, heaven, only ⲏ is easily legible. 34) See, for example: Liddell H.G., Scott R. A Greek-English Lexicon / Revised by H.S. Jones and others. (10th ed.: Oxford, 1996). P ; Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. (Oxford, 1961). P ) See: Gignac.Op. cit. P ) See: Ibid. P ; on p. 211 Gignac also states that an unaccented ο, which is the case here, is tending to be represented by ου.

11 The Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 477 R.-P. finds support for his reading 37 in some liturgical sources of non- Egyptian provenance, 38 but I consider my reading εἰς τὸ σωματοποιῆσαι αὐτὰ, to represent them materially, decidedly, preferable, because it does not disturb the clear text of the papyrus itself, and because the term σωματοποιέω is used in connection with the Eucharist precisely in Egyptian Christian writings of the 3rd c., 39 as well as by Pseudo-Macarius and Justin. 40 Alas, the Louvain fragment, which could lend some support to my reading, is barely legible here. Th. Lefort, its editor, managed to read only the following letters: [.]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ[...]ⲁ[...ⲙ]ⲙⲁⲡⲟⲉⲓ[ⲕ]. This Coptic sequence should obviously be interpreted as a qualitative form of ⲟⲩⲟⲡ, sanctify, plus about 7-8 illegible letters (only ⲁ in the middle is clearly readable) plus a few other letters that should be parts of some unidentified word or words, plus, probably, the word ⲟⲉⲓⲕ, bread. I suggest reconstructing the Louvain fragment here as [ⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ[ⲟⲩ] ⲁ[ⲩⲱ ⲧⲁ] ⲙⲁⲡⲟⲉⲓ[ⲕ], for sanctifying them and representing: the bread etc. Furthermore, despite the fact that in Coptic there is a special word for rendering σωματοποιέω ⲧⲁⲗϭⲟ, which is used mainly in the sense of to heal, 41 I remain convinced that the Coptic ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁⲙⲁ could well be a translation of the Greek εἰς τὸ σωματοποιῆσαι αὐτά, because a Coptic translator might render σωματοποιέω (in the sense to represent materially ) as ⲧⲁⲙⲁ ( to show, to represent ) and then add ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ (causative prefix plus qualitative form of to sanctify ) to explain clearly the notion of Eucharistic transformation contained in εἰς τὸ σωματοποει ν. When all is said and done, Egyptian writers certainly attest that the term σωματοποιέω was used in a Eucharistic context to denote the transformation of the Holy gifts, and the anaphora considered here (an Egyptian 37) Which seems to be influenced by his erroneous word-division in his diplomatic version of the text. 38) Roca-Puig. Anàfora de Barcelona i altres pregàries: Missa del segle IV. (Barcelona, 1994). P ) Cf.: Clemens Alexandrinus,Paedagogus I (Marrou H.-I., Harl M. (eds.) Clément d Alexandrie, Le Pédagogue. Livre I. (Paris, 1970: Sources chrétiennes; 70). P. 180); Origenes, De oratione 33 (PG 11. Col. 557). 40) Cf.: Justinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo 70 (Marcovich M. (ed.) Iustini Martyris Dialogus cum Tryphone. (Berlin; New York, 1997: Patristische Texte und Studien; 47). P. 192); Pseudo-Macarius Magnus, 50 Homiliae spirituales (coll. H) 4 (PG 34. Col. 481b); idem, 64 Sermones (coll. B) (PG 34. Col. 896a). It should be noted that the use of this term by Pseudo-Macarius poses again a question of the provenance of at least some parts of the Macarian corpus. 41) Crum W.E. A Coptic Dictionary. (Oxford, 1939). P

12 478 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) one!) is the only possible known liturgical text that might have influenced their use of the term in this very sense. In lines 155a, 8-9 R.-P. reads ΕΜΕΛΛΕΝΠΑΡΑ Ι ΟΝΑΙΛΑΒΩΝΑΡΤΟΝ ΚΑΙΕΥΧΑΡΙ//ΣΤΗΣΑΣΚΑΙΕΚΑΛΕΣΕΝΚΑΙΕ ΩΚΕΝ as ἔμελλεν παραδιδόναι ἑαυτόν, λαβὼν ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας, ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν. While the insertion of ἑαυτὸν is quite logical, the omission of καὶ is of course unnecessary. In any case, rendering of ΕΚΑΛΕΣΕΝ as ἔκλασεν and not verbatim as ἐκάλεσεν, having called, without any explanation, is unfounded. Of course, R.-P. s rendering is supported by all variant redactions of the institution narrative, 42 but here his reading is actually supported not by an external witness, but by the Louvain fragment, which has: ⲧⲉⲣⲉϥⲛⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲇⲟⲩ ⲙⲟϥ ⲁϥϫ ⲡⲟⲉⲓⲕ ⲁϥϣ ϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲉϩⲣⲁ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲁϥⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ⲁϥⲡⲟϣ ⲁϥⲧⲁⲁϥ, when He was going to give Himself, took bread, has given thanks upon it, has blessed it, broke, gave, and R.-P. fails to notice this. In line 155a, 10 R.-P. reads ΤΟΥΤΟΜΟΙΕΣΤΙΝΤΟΣΩΜΑ as τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, this is My body. While he is probably correct in interpreting ΜΟΙ as μού, and both the corresponding New Testament passages (Mt 26: 26, Mk 14: 22, Lk 22: 19, 1 Cor 11: 24) and the Louvain fragment, which gives here ⲡⲁⲥⲱⲙⲁ, My body, support his interpretation, a straightforward reading, τοῦτό μοί ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα, should not have been discounted so easily. In lines 155a, R.-P. reads ΛΑΒΕΤΕ//ΠΙΕΤΕΤΟΑΙΜΑ as λάβετε, πίετε τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα, Take, drink this is My blood. While this reading is generally supported by the Louvain fragment, which has: ϫ ⲧⲉⲧ ⲥⲱ. ⲡⲁ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁⲥⲛⲟϥ, Take, drink for (γάρ) this is My blood, the papyrus still could be read here without a conjecture: λάβετε, πίετε τὸ αἷμα, take, drink the blood. In line 155a, 13 R.-P. is right in inserting Ν 43 and correcting the misspelled Ο 44 in ΕΚΧΥΟΜΕΝΩΝ: ἐκχυνόμενον, shed. The Louvain fragment abruptly ends shortly after this word. 42) However, in patristic literature there are a few examples of the use of ἐκάλεσεν in connection with the σῶμα of Christ and His Church: in reference to the Eucharist, cf. Hesychius, Comm. brevis in Ps : Τὸ μάννα ὡς ἀχειροποίητον οὐράνιον ἐκάλεσεν, ἐσήμανε δὲ τὸ σῶμα Χριστοῦ (Jagic V. Supplementum Psalterii Bononiensis. Incerti auctoris explanatio Graeca. Vienna, 1917), and in a more general sense, cf. Theodoretus, Interpr. in xiv epistulas s. Pauli: Χριστὸν ἐνταῦθα τὸ κοινὸν σῶμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐκάλεσε (PG. 82. Col. 325). 43) Cf. Gignac. Op. cit. P ) See: Ibid. P. 277.

13 The Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 479 In line 155a, 14 R.-P. rightly corrects H in ΑΦΗΣΙΝ: ἄφεσιν, remission. 45 In lines 155a, R.-P. reads ΟΣÓΚΙΝΕΑΝΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ// ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣΣΟΥΤΗΝΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝ as ὁσάκις ἐὰν συνερχόμενοι ποιῶμεν τὴν ἀνάμνησιν, each time when we meet together, we shall make the remembrance. This reading is influenced by the following division into words in R.-P. s diplomatic version: ΟΣÓΚΙΝ ΕΑΝ ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ ΣΟΥ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΜΝΗΣΙΝ. But it is doubtful that the scribe has indeed rendered a conjectured ὁσάκις plus συνερχόμενοι ποιῶμεν as ΟΣÓΚΙΝ and ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ//ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ respectively. Meanwhile, ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ//ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ could be interpreted without any guesswork at all as οὖν ἔρχοντες ποιοῦντες, when meeting together, making. Though, this seems to be a construction too complicated for a prayer. In sum, I suggest we read the sequence ΟΥΝΕΡΧΟΝΤΕΣ//ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ as συνέρχοντες, ποιοῦντες, supposing that the scribe confused Ο and Σ, which were written in a similar way. ΟΣÓΚΙΝΕΑΝ, then, could be read as ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν. 46 We have already seen an example of the replacement of ω by ο in lines 154b, 4; 154b, 12 and 155a, 24 of our papyrus, while interchange between οι (or υ) and ε (or αι) in unaccented syllables occurs in the papyri many times and is probably a result of bilingual interference. 47 So the reading I suggest is prefereable than R.-P. s (moreover, a pseudodiacritical mark above Ο could even be interpreted in the sense of a correction of a misspelled letter). This reading may seem a bit unnatural, especially in comparison with ὁσάκις ἐὰν / ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν in 1 Cor 11: 25-26, the locus theologicus for this very place of the anaphora, but, I repeat, substitution of ὁσάκις with ΟΣÓΚΙΝ is unlikely phonetically. Besides, a search query in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae gives no instance of a use of ὁσάκις ἐὰν together with a participle form (NB: here in the papyrus we have συνέρχοντες, ποιοῦντες), while there are a number of instances of the use of ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν with an aorist participle. One of these is found in Athanasius of Alexandria: ὡς ἂν ἐκεῖνοι μανέντες, 48 i.e. in a work of an author of the same time and provenance as the Barcelona papyrus. 49 Finally, I see no reason for omitting ΣΟΥ after ΠΟΙΟΥΝΤΕΣ. 45) See: Ibid. P ) I gratefully thank Andrej Vinogradov who helped me to establish the most plausible variant for interpreting the ΟΣÓΚΙΝΕΑΝ sequence. 47) See: Gignac. Op. cit. P ) Athanasius Magnus, Orationes tres contra Arianos. 44 (PG 26. Col. 417). 49) Yet, in the given passage of Athanasius we have the ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν sequence in reversed order; but, for example, in John Chrysostom s homilies on Paul s Epistle to the Romans,

14 480 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) Thus it seems that the whole sequence should read ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἄν συνέρχοντες, ποιοῦντές σου τὴν ἀνάμνησιν, like those [i.e. the apostles], whenever we meet together, we make the remembrance of You. Lines 155a, show an obvious omission after ΑΓΙΑΣΗΣ in ΑΓΙΑΣΗΣΤΟΙΣΠΑΣΙΝΕΞΑΥΤΩΝ//ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ. It seems that the scribe has omitted one or two lines here. R.-P. suggests filling the gap with an expression from the Byzantine anaphora of Basil 50 and to read ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ as an imperfect (μετελαμβάνουσιν): ἁγιάσῃς πάντας τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τούτων μετέχοντας, ὥστε γενέσθαι τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν μετελαμβάνουσιν, You would sanctify all who have taken part from the bread and the cup, so that to all who have received Communion they [the bread and cup] will be.... I suggest reading ΜΕΤΑΛΑΜΒΑΝΟΥΣΙΝ without any alteration as μεταλαμβάνουσιν, [those who] communicate. And while acknowledging an omission here, I would just mark it without filling in the gap, precisely because any conjecture here (and especially one based on a non-egyptian source) would be a mere fantasy. In lines 155a, R.-P. reads ΜΕΤΟΧΗΝ//ΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝ as μετοχὴν ἀφθαρσίας, communication of incorruption. While he is probably right in his interpretation, taking into account the fact that the same construction (Acc.+Gen.) is repeated many times in the following enumeration of spiritual gifts (κοινωνίαν Πνεύματος... καταρτισμὸν πίστεως καὶ ἀληθείας... συντελείωσιν... θελήματος), 51 it is also true that ΜΕΤΟΧΗΝ// ΑΦΘΑΡΣΙΑΝ could be read as μετοχὴν, ἀφθαρσίαν, communication [and] incorruption, and this literal reading should not be passed over without commentary. In line 155a, 24 R.-P. correctly reads ΟΞΑΖΟΜΕΝ as a conjunctive: δοξάζωμεν, [will] glorify (cf. lines 154b, 4; 154b, 12; 155a, 15; 155a, 24 of our papyrus). In line 155a, 25 R.-P. reads ΑΓΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΥ as ἡγιασμένου, but I see no need to disturb the clear text of the papyrus, which contains the form ἁγιασμένου not only here, but also in the following prayer of thanksgivfor example, we have the following passage: καὶ οὗτοι γοῦν, φησὶν, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι ἂν ἐγένοντο (PG 60. Col. 562). 50) Hänggi A., Pahl I.Prex Eucharistica: Textus e variis Liturgiis antiquoribus selecti. (Fribourg, 1968: Spicilegium Friburgense; 12). P. 238, ) This argument seems to be of greater importance than the citation ]ν ἀφθαρσίας Roca- Puig found in a thanksgiving prayer from the papyrus P.Berol

15 The Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 481 ing after Communion, which occupies a part of the folium 155b of the papyrus. In line 155b, 3 R.-P. rightly corrects iotacisms (cf. line 154b, 2 of our papyrus) in ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΟΥΜΕΝΣΟΙΕΠΕΙΤΗΜΕΤΑΛΗΜΨΙΤΟΥΑΡΤΟΥ εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι ἐπὶ τῇ μεταλήμψει, we offer you thanks for the Communion. In line 155b, 4 R.-P. reads ΚΑΙΤΟΥΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΥΚΑΙΤΟΥΑΓΙΑΣΜΕΝΟΥ as καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ, and of the cup of sanctification. R.-P. explains his conjecture by a reference to a Milanese papyrus edited by Ghedini. 52 In his commentaries, R.-P. also offers another conjecture: καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τοῦ ἡγιασμένου, and of the sanctified cup, which he considers an acceptable sense. For me, the literal reading of what the papyrus itself contains, καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ ἁγιασμένου, already is an acceptable sense : in the anaphora, He who is called ἁγιασμένος is Christ Himself see my commentary on line 155a, 25 above. This means that Christ is sanctified either by God the Father or by Christians and if the first interpretation, that Christ is eternally sanctified by God the Father, may seem dubious, the second finds its parallel in other Egyptian anaphoras, which depict Christian worship as a sanctification of God by the worshippers. 53 So the line in question should be read literally: καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ ἁγιασμένου, and of cup and of [Him, Who is] sanctified [i.e. Christ]. In lines 155b, 5-6 R.-P. is right in correcting three orthographic errors of the scribe: παρακαλοῦμέν σε, we beseech You, (papyrus: ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΟΥ- ΜΕΝΣΟΙ; cf. line 155a, 16 of our papyrus) and μετειληφότας ἀπ αὐτῶν, those who have received a part from them [e.g. Holy Gifts M. Zh.] (papyrus: ΜΕΤΕΛΗΦΟΤΑΣΥΠΑΥΤΩΝ). 54 In line 155b, 8 R.-P. reads ΑΓΙΑΝ as ἁγνείαν, purity, noting in his commentary that other readings could also be suggested, e.g. ἁγιωσύνη, 52) Ghedini G. Frammenti liturgici in un papiro milanese, in: Aegyptus, 13:2 (1933). P ) Anaphoras: of the Liturgy of Mark (Cuming G.J. (ed.) The Liturgy of St. Mark. (Roma, 1990: Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 234). P. 37), from the Euchologion of Sarapion (Johnson M.E. The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical and Theological Analysis. (Roma, 1995: Orientalia Christiana Analecta; 249). P. 46), from the papyrus from Dêr-Balyzeh (van Haelst J. Une nouvelle reconstitution du papyrus liturgique de Dêr- Balizeh, in: Ephemerides Theologicae Louvanienses. Vol. 45 (1969). P , here: p. 448). 54) See: Gignac. Op. cit. P

16 482 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) ὑγίειαν, ὑγείαν, ἄδειαν. Of these, I would prefer ὑγείαν, health, because it is more natural phonetically to spell ὑγείαν as ἁγίαν, not ἁγνείαν; furthermore, a wish that Holy Communion should grant a communicant both bodily and spiritual health is very common in the thanksgiving prayers. In lines 155b, 9, 11 and 12 R.-P. rightly corrects three orthographic errors of the scribe: ἀνανέωσιν, renewal (papyrus: ΑΝΑΙΝΕΩΣΙΝ), 55 φιλαλληλίαν, mutual love (papyrus: ΦΙΛΛΗΛΙΑΝ), 56 ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα, man who is created after God (papyrus: ΑΝΘΡΩ- ΠΟΝΤΟΚΑΤΑΘΕΟΝΚΤΙΣΘΕΝΤΑ). 57 In line 155b, 13 R.-P. reads ΑΜΑΧΥΝΤΟΙ as ἀναίσχυντοι, shameless. I suggest ἀμάχητοι, invincible, instead. My reading seems to be more satisfactory phonetically, because it needs no guesswork in replacing μ by ν and α with αι (stressed!), while an interchange of υ and η in the papyri occurs frequently in all phonetic conditions throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods, 58 and insertions of nasals before stops are also very frequent. 59 Finally, in line 155b, 14 R.-P. reads ΑΠΟΠΑΝΤΟΣΑΝΟΜΙΩΝ ΚΑΙΤΕΛ- ΕΙΟΜΕΝΟΙ as ἀπὸ παντὸς <κακοῦ καὶ λελυτρωμένοι ἀπὸ πασῶν> ἀνομιῶν καὶ τέλειο<ι καὶ πεπληροφορη>μένοι, from every evil and freed from all crimes and accomplished and plentiful. Both conjectures are explained as resembling some biblical verses. I see absolutely no need of either conjecture here, because the genitive plural ἀνομιῶν could be understood as a partitive genetive, and thus the literal text of the papyrus reads literally perfectly well as: ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀνομιῶν καὶ τελειομένοι, from each of crimes, and being accomplished etc. There are also a few minor editorial errors in R.-P. s edition of both the anaphora and the thanksgiving prayer: in the anaphora διαθῆκης is written instead of διαθήκης (155a, 7), in the thanksgiving prayer the concluding Σ of line 155b, 13 is found in the beginning of line 155b, 14; conjectures are indicated only occasionally. Finally, I should repeat that R.-P. is usually right in correcting minor misspellings and scribal errors, while his main conjectured interpretations 55) On an interchange of α and αι in medial position see: Ibid. P ) On the sporadic interchange of α and η see: Ibid. P. 286; on simplification and gemination of liquids see: Ibid. P ) On omission of final ν before a word beginning with a stop see: Ibid. P ) Ibid. P. 262; examples for the case we have here are given on p ) Ibid. P

17 The Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 483 are often unnecessary and could be agreed with only when they are supported by the Louvain or the Vienna fragments. As a result, R.-P. s edition of the text of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer is unreliable. Having shown this, I will now present my own reconstruction of the text, based on all its three known manuscripts P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b-155b, Louvain. Copt. 27 and P.Vindob. G I. 3. Critical Text of the Anaphora and Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus In providing the critical text of the anaphora and thanksgiving prayer I am adhering to the following principles. Wordings of the main manuscript witness (i.e. P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b-155b) are kept without any alterations as much as possible; when a conjecture is inevitable, the closest to the literal text of P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b-155b is chosen. Only once I omit a few words from the text of the main manuscript witness and on three occasions I insert a few words into it. These emendations were made only because both the Louvain and Vienna fragments agree together against the main papyrus; all these changes (the omission and insertions) are indicated by the angle brackets: <>, as well as in the apparatus. A lacuna in line 155a, 19 is indicated by the square brackets: [ ]. Abbreviated Divine names are deciphered, but this is indicated by the parentheses: ( ). For the convenience of comparing the critical text with the diplomatic version, division into lines is kept exactly as is in the main papyrus; the apparatus is given after the anaphora and after the thanksgiving prayer separately. In the apparatus, the original readings of the Barcelona papyrus (B) are given whenever a conjecture is made; the variant readings of the Louvain fragment (L) are given without translation (i.e. in Coptic); the variant readings of the Vienna fragment (V) are given only when they are (at least partly) readable and are not pure conjectures themselves. In order to make the text clear all biblical and patristic references are given below, as footnotes to the English translation. Εἷς Θεός Ιησοὺς ὁ Κύριος Εὐχαριστία περὶ ἄρτου καὶ ποτηρίου Ανω τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν Εχομεν πρὸς Κύριον Ετι εὐχαριστήσωμεν Αξιον καὶ δίκαι- [P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b]

20 486 M. Zheltov / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) εἰς τέλειόν σου ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα ἵνα ὦμεν τέλειοι καὶ καθαροὶ, ἀμάχητοι, σεσωσμένοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀνομιῶν καὶ τελειομένοι ἐν 15 παντὶ θελήματι τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ καὶ Π(ατ)ρὸς Κ(υρίο)υ ἡμῶν Ι(ησο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ δι οὗ σοὶ δόξα, κράτος, αἰῶνος τιμὴ, μεγαλωσύνη καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς σύμπαντας αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων Αμήν. Εἷς Θεός 3 ἐπὶ] επει B; μεταλήμψει] μεταλημψι B; 5 σε] σοι B; 6 μετειληφότας ἀπ αὐτῶν] μετεληφοτος υπ αυτων B; 8 ὑγείαν] αγιαν B; 9 ἀνανέωσιν] αναινεωσιν B; 11 φιλαλληλίαν] φιλληλιαν B; 12 τὸν] το B; 13 ἀμάχητοι] αμαχυντοι B. I. 4. English Translation of the Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus 60 One God. 61 Jesus the Lord. Thanksgiving for the bread and the cup. [Anaphora] 60) In giving textual parallels I am adhering to the following principles. Biblical references are given always when an expression shows some proximity with a biblical phrase (OT citations are always taken from the Septuagint; when I cite deutero-canonical books or when the numbering differs from the Masoretic text, this is explicitly marked by an abbreviation: LXX). Patristic parallels are given from the 1-4th century sources with a special attention paid to texts of Egyptian provenance. Parallels from purely liturgical sources (namely, from Greek Liturgies of Mark, James, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus; from the Euchology of Sarapion; from some Egyptian liturgical papyri i.e. only from the texts of the eucharistic rites preserved in Greek) are given (with a citation because most of these have no common numbering) only when a particular expression of the anaphora or thanksgiving prayer resembles some particular expression in these sources. In other words, obvious parallels in such anaphoral commonplaces as: the Ανω τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν and Αξιον καὶ δίκαιον in the initial dialogue of anaphora, the Αγιος, Αγιος, Αγιος... in the Sanctus, the words of Institution, the final Amen, are totally omitted. In cases of verbal conformity of expressions an equal sign (=) is used. All parallels except biblical are accompanied by a reference to an edition of the text. 61) Εἷς Θεός this acclamation was very popular in the Early Church (see Peterson E. Εἷς Θεός: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. (Göttingen, 1926: Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments; 411)).

Arkansas Tech University MATH 4033: Elementary Modern Algebra Dr. Marcel B. Finan Composition. Invertible Mappings In this section we discuss two procedures for creating new mappings from old ones, namely,

105 Verses in the Critical Greek Text of the New Testament Without Any Manuscript Support These notes were sent to me by Dr. Maurice Robinson and detail 105 places in the Critical Greek Text of the New

Math 6 SL Probability Distributions Practice Test Mark Scheme. (a) Note: Award A for vertical line to right of mean, A for shading to right of their vertical line. AA N (b) evidence of recognizing symmetry

Chapter 2 * * * * * * * Introduction to Verbs * * * * * * * In the first chapter, we practiced the skill of reading Greek words. Now we want to try to understand some parts of what we read. There are a

She selects the option. Jenny starts with the al listing. This has employees listed within She drills down through the employee. The inferred ER sttricture relates this to the redcords in the databasee

180 Section 9. Polar Equations and Graphs In this section, we will be graphing polar equations on a polar grid. In the first few examples, we will write the polar equation in rectangular form to help identify

Lesson 2: The Omega Verb - Present Tense Day one I. Word Study and Grammar 1. Most Greek verbs end in in the first person singular. 2. The present tense is formed by adding endings to the present stem.

Potential Dividers 46 minutes 46 marks Page 1 of 11 Q1. In the circuit shown in the figure below, the battery, of negligible internal resistance, has an emf of 30 V. The pd across the lamp is 6.0 V and

ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΙΛΙΑΔΑ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΠΑΛΛΗΣ SCHOOLTIME E-BOOKS www.scooltime.gr [- 2 -] The Project Gutenberg EBook of Iliad, by Homer This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions

Απόκριση σε Δυνάμεις Αυθαίρετα Μεταβαλλόμενες με το Χρόνο The time integral of a force is referred to as impulse, is determined by and is obtained from: Newton s 2 nd Law of motion states that the action

84 CHAPTER 4. STATIONARY TS MODELS 4.6 Autoregressive Moving Average Model ARMA(,) This section is an introduction to a wide class of models ARMA(p,q) which we will consider in more detail later in this

The Accusative Case A Target for the Action A lesson for the Paideia web-app Ian W. Scott, 2015 The Accusative Case So far we've seen three noun cases Nominative Genitive Vocative We need one more case

How to register an account with the Hellenic Community of Sheffield. (1) EN: Go to address GR: Πηγαίνετε στη διεύθυνση: http://www.helleniccommunityofsheffield.com (2) EN: At the bottom of the page, click

Conditional Sentences It all depends! A lesson for the Paideia web-app Ian W. Scott, 2015 What is a conditional sentence? An If then sentence States that something will happen if some condition is fulfilled

Ephesians Wayne Stewart 1 Shadows of a ministry independent of Jerusalem and the 12 Taken from CH Welch 2 Acts 28:25 25 (AV) And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had

Strain gauge and rosettes Introduction A strain gauge is a device which is used to measure strain (deformation) on an object subjected to forces. Strain can be measured using various types of devices classified

Your source for quality GNSS Networking Solutions and Design Services! Page 1 of 5 Calculating the propagation delay of coaxial cable The delay of a cable or velocity factor is determined by the dielectric

«ΨΥΧΙΚΗ ΥΓΕΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΣΕΞΟΥΑΛΙΚΗ» ΠΑΝΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗ ΕΡΕΥΝΑ ΤΗΣ GAMIAN- EUROPE We would like to invite you to participate in GAMIAN- Europe research project. You should only participate if you want to and choosing

LESSON TEN: THE ADJECTIVE Memorization of vocabulary ten ἀγαθος good ἁγιος holy, set apart ἀλλα but (the regular contrasting particle, with δε used at times) ἀληθεια truth ἀληθινος true/genuine αὐτος he

Example of the Baum-Welch Algorithm Larry Moss Q520, Spring 2008 1 Our corpus c We start with a very simple corpus. We take the set Y of unanalyzed words to be {ABBA, BAB}, and c to be given by c(abba)

Terabyte Technology Ltd is a Web and Graphic design company in Limassol with dedicated staff who will endeavour to deliver the highest quality of work in our field. We offer a range of services such as